Which railroad is most friendly to Amtrak operations and which is most open to the prospect of adding more Amtrak trains to their lines?
Amtrak has very few friends even here on this forum!! I spent many hours here during the Obama transition, and was amazed that there is so little support for a national, high-speed rail system among rail fans.
The freight railraods have neither nostalgic love nor infrastructure benefit from Amtrak. Our nation supports the most profitable transportation systems, and all over the world it is known that passenger rail must be heavily subsidized.
I think you have it wrong. There is quite a bit of support for passenger rail in general, and Amtrak in particular here in these forums. We’re just critical of what we see as Amtrak’s shortcomings and are afraid that, if not done wisely, the money coming to upgrade intercity passenger rail service will be squandered.
Speaking for myself, I’d just like to see a “better” Amtrak - one with some level of monetary incentives built into the overall corporate performance and efficiency.
This may be true, but without understanding why, it is not useful as a fact to support investment and operation of passenger rail services. As my mother said, “If everyone jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?”
…well, my reasons are mostly aesthetic. It’s a concept called “freedom.” Being able to travel in my own country safely, comfortably, and economically.
And it seems that everyone on this forum requires an economic analysis of “freedom.” Hey, I know that sometimes fighting for my beliefs is as crazy as jumping off a bridge; "
| 
“Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably will themselves not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die.” |
| - |
It must be me. I don’t get it. I am pro American, pro business, etc. but because something smacks of so called Socialism it should be ignored at best, totally disdained and condemned at worst? If it doesn’t pay for a private company to build and operate the street you live on, to furnish water, sewer, police, fire, or any other municipal or sociatiel service, then why do we allow governments to build and provide them for us? Why don’t we just do without? Or the Army, Navy, Marines, AIr Force, and Coast Guard? Since I don’t live on the ocean, I don’t need a Navy or Coast Guard, so let those who live there pay for it? That’s not American either now, is it?
That brings us to the highway system, the interstate highway system and on to the railsystem. Since a majority of the people don’t normally use they system (as a whole) on a day to day basis, why shouldn’t just the truckers and bus companies build and support it and the rest of us pay a toll as we use it…10 miles to work, 100 miles to Grandma’s house, 1000 miles on a vacation someday? And the waterways and the airways the same. So there, I guess we don’t need a rail system, passenger or freight, supplied or somehow supported by the government. And where does that put us? Economically? Securely? Socially? Powerfully?
No, government has to step in, as it always has, for the good of the country so that it can ecnomically, securely, socially, and powerfully can allow for the development of its commerce and the prosperity of its people. I am not say it has to be totally the government, it can and should be a partnership of business and government. Research, development, study, designing, manufacturing, assembling, building, and operating are some the the aspects which can develop jobs along with a service to be used by and for all (all=business, industry, government, public). If we can
Correction – $137 million for approx. 1300 miles is $100,000 per mile; but the Cascades report I had gives minimum costs of $1 million per mile to upgrade for modest speeds, up to $30 million per mile for high-speed electrification (and at that point, maglev at $50 million per mile is not out of the question).
Is is socialist to do what is right? Was my great-grandfather a socialist for supporting passenger trains? Was he un-American when he allowed black men to work along side locomotive engineers? Why did my father lose a leg in Korea? Was it to assure that the Koreans would have better trains?
I just have a hard time with the arguements “because it’s the right thing to do” or “because everyone is doing it”.
“Right” in this case, is a value judgment, so what values make it right?
Nobody does frt RRing like the US, except Canada, so are we “wrong”?
It can make good sense to our shared set of values to spend public money on things that don’t have hard cost/benefit ratios. National Parks, for example.
But, it NEVER makes sense to pour public money down a sewer. There has to be some rationale behind it, or you’ll never get consensus.
“It never makes sense to pour money down a sewer.”
Are you opposed to government-operated sewage treatment plants also?
I am by and large a friend, although I see lots of opportunities for improvements, many of which I had discussed.
Given its political constraints, Amtrak management does a reasonably good job. But its performance probably would improve if the proper incentives were put in place.
I have taken three or four trips a year on Amtrak for as long as I can remember. Excluding the on-time performance (oxymoron) of the long distance trains, for the most part the trips have been pleasant.
The most effective incentives for Amtrak to lift its game would be to open passenger rail to competition. However, no one outside of the government is going to invest in passenger rail. There is no return. But the Australians have developed a model that offers a workable alternative.
Three of Australia’s premier long distance trains (Indian Pacific, Gahn, and Overland) are operated under contract by Great Southern Railway, Inc., which is a consortium of private investors. The contract is let through periodic bidding. If the contractors fail to meet their performance requirements, the contract can be awarded to another bidder when it is re-bid.
I returned recently from a trip to Australia. Whilst I was there I rode the Overland from Adelaide to Melbourne, and the Country Line from Melbourne to Sydney. The NSW government operates the Country Link. The crew on the Overland bent over backwards to provide the passengers with exemplary service. The service on the Country Link was more like that on Amtrak. It was OK, but it was nothing to write home about.
Amtrak has some excellent employees. But it also has a significant number of employees whose primary motivation appears to be to hang on until they can retire. It is frequently reflected in their attitude. They do what i
Most government activities, e.g. defense, police, fire, public education, etc. are non- commercial. Society decided that it is more practicable for the government to provide these services then to have them provided through free market players, although there are some exceptions, e.g. private schools, water companies, utilities, etc.
The government invested in highway, airway, waterway, railway, etc. infrastructure because it believed that it could recoup the investment costs through user fees. For the most part it has, although in some instances the user fees flow back to the government indirectly and, therefore, are difficult to trace. It should continue to invest in projects, including rail projects, that serve the body politic as a whole, have a reasonable probability of covering the cost through user fees and ticket revenues, and is the best alternative for the situation.
Passenger rail, especially high speed rail, has not demonstrated that it can come even close to covering the cost of its investment through user fees and ticket sales. This means the taxpayer has to pick-up the tab. For a nation with a governmental debt burden (federal, state, and local) of more than $13 trillion, this warrants major consideration.
But Sam, it has not been given a real chance to prove itself nor does the catch all phrases concerning monies flowing back to the government that are “difficult to trace”. Either that phrase has to apply to every form of transportation or none, we shouldn’t single out just passenger rail. Since the government has been involved in roads and waterways since before this country’s inception and in rail, interstate highways and air traffic terminal and air space control, the mess is too tangled to be undone without serious injury to the overall system. Or can it all be handed over to a profit based investor group to untangle and still allow us to drive
[quote user=“henry6”]
But Sam, it has not been given a real chance to prove itself nor does the catch all phrases concerning monies flowing back to the government that are “difficult to trace”. Either that phrase has to apply to every form of transportation or none, we shouldn’t single out just passenger rail. Since the government has been involved in roads and waterways since before this country’s inception and in rail, interstate highways and air traffic terminal and air space control, the mess is too tangled to be undone without serious injury to the overall system. Or can it all be handed over to a profit based investor group to untangle
Two points: America is not the rest of the world, our government, society, etc., is all structured and philosophized differently. So to assume superimposing Great Britain, or Germany or Eurpoe or Australia or Japan over our transportation system is futile at best.
Secondly, my main point is that in Amtrak’s history, because of politics, it has never been able to progress in any direction far enough or long enough to find out what really could happen. And no one has brought up the “Conrail” concept, either, they just blast it as being socialistic. Up to now I have said give Amtrak anythng and everything and let it work itself out. Now we have a good man at the helm who might actually accomplish that!
Sam frequently throws out the argument that Amtrak loses big money except for the NEC. We never ask the question “What is different about the NEC?” What is different is the trains are fast, frequent, and pretty much on time. Most of the rest of the system is slow, one train a day or even fewer, and seldom on time. On the NEC, the trains move more people than the airlines and buses combined.
I believe that, like the road, airway, and waterway systems, the nation should build a high speed interstate railway system, owned, maintained, and operated by the federal government, intrastate rail should be built, owned, and maintained by the state governments, passenger stations should be built, owned, and operated by the community they serve, and the trains should be run by private companies for profit under the direction of “Rail Traffic Control”.
Funded by a system of tolls, fuel, and ticket taxes.
Phoebe: I will agree with your conclusions of the NEC. Probably the corridor would have even more passengers if there was enough capacity on every train for last minute travelers to get a seat. Whenever I check on certain trains there are never any available seats. Perhaps when the extra cars for the acelas and corridor trains get extra Amfleet then people will show up to get a seat. That was the idea of the Eastern shuttle and it worked fine.
Other points on NEC making money.
-
The high fares on the Acela certainly helps it to be positive cash.
-
Electric Motors. Servicing certainly is less - 91 day inspections are a long way apart, can make more turns with double ended cabs, overhaul times much greater, better ROW causes less wheel truing. Fuel costs: Electricity cost less than Diesel per mile, Regenerative braking puts some power back into the grid. Can pull regular trains faster.
-
Passenger cars:: Better ROW means less wear and tear.
-
Stations:: Probably the originations and destinations costs per passenger (would like each station have that as a national metric for people like Sam to analyze). I woould think that NYP has a very low cost because AMTRAK does not use any more space there as say PHL.I imagine many readers can come up with their own examples.
-
TAXES:: Do not know if the diesel fuel is subject to any taxes. Does not have to pay property taxes on ROW, stations, and ancillary structures that are part of the contracting RRs contract costs.
-
The public transportation feed is better in the NEC. Another area that is cl
The NEC is also different in that passenger train service has never been discontinued. Travel by train, between cities as well as within cities, has always been important and highways would never be able to absorb the traffic. It is an accepted part of the American culture, and Easterners would protest their loss of freedom if we took away their trains.
So it makes a big difference when the CITIZENS are friends of the trains!! In fact, it makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE!!!
The other interesting thing that gives credence to the Corridor is who uses it. Media newspeople will, especially NY to D.C. So do politicians. And sports teams, too. They all bring attention to the Corridor services as does the fact that a huge number of area residents use trains to commute meaining they know about trains and train travel. They may not all be friends, but they are users!
Amen Brother Henry6
[quote user=“blue streak 1”]
Phoebe: I will agree with your conclusions of the NEC. Probably the corridor would have even more passengers if there was enough capacity on every train for last minute travelers to get a seat. Whenever I check on certain trains there are never any available seats. Perhaps when the extra cars for the acelas and corridor trains get extra Amfleet then people will show up to get a seat. That was the idea of the Eastern shuttle and it worked fine.
Other points on NEC making money.
-
The high fares on the Acela certainly helps it to be positive cash.
-
Electric Motors. Servicing certainly is less - 91 day inspections are a long way apart, can make more turns with double ended cabs, overhaul times much greater, better ROW causes less wheel truing. Fuel costs: Electricity cost less than Diesel per mile, Regenerative braking puts some power back into the grid. Can pull regular trains faster.
-
Passenger cars:: Better ROW means less wear and tear.
-
Stations:: Probably the originations and destinations costs per passenger (would like each station have that as a national metric for people like Sam to analyze). I woould think that NYP has a very low cost because AMTRAK does not use any more space there as say PHL.I imagine many readers can come up with their own examples.
-
TAXES:: Do not know if the diesel fuel is subject to any taxes. Does not have to pay property taxes on ROW, stations, and ancillary structures that are part of the contracting RRs contract costs.
-
The public transportation feed is better i
It’s interesting how this thread got off-topic from whether Amtrak has any friends among the Class 1 railroads to whether Amtrak has any friends among posters on this forum.
To answer the OP’s question, I would submit that Amtrak does reasonably well on CSX, though I would hesitate to call the relationship between CSX and Amtrak “friendly.” Indeed, freight railroad opposition has always been one huge obstacle to expanding Amtrak service. One would think it would make sense for an Amtrak train to connect Florida and Chicago via Atlanta, for example. But CSX and Norfolk-Southern won’t let it happen. It’s been tried ever since the Floridian was canceled in 1979 (and remember, that train didn’t go through Atlanta either, but took a more westerly route through Alabama and Kentucky – the old South Wind route).
Now for some other points:
The Northeast Corridor trains are more popular mainly because of the short distances between the major metropolitan areas it serves. It’s actually quicker to take the train from New York to Washington than it is to fly there, because of all the time spent on the ground at the airports involved.
That said, the advantage of Amtrak’s long-distance trains isn’t so much the major metro areas they connect, but the intermediate stops. Try taking a commercial flight from Palatka, Florida to Rocky Mount, North Carolina, for example.
The worst thing that ever happened to Amtrak was the firing of David Gunn, who was Amtrak’s president from 2002-2005. He was the most dedicated leader Amtrak ever had, and the railroad made great strides under his leadership. I had the pleasure of interviewing the man on the phone once, and came away extremely impressed. He pointed out to me, for example, that it is the Northeast Corridor, not the long-distance trains, that eat up most of Amtrak’s budget. Eliminating all long-distance trains would